General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBackground Checks For Ammo? Could Become Law in California
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/background-checks-for-ammo-could-happen-in-californiaA referendum supported by California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom gained the required number of signatures to appear on the statewide ballot, according to a report from the Sacramento Bee.
“Enough massacres, death, tears, and hate – it’s time to take action and save lives,” Newsom said in a statement, according to the Bee. “The Safety for All initiative gives California voters the opportunity to keep guns and ammo out of the hands of violent, dangerous, hateful people."
The measure would also ban individuals from having magazine clips with over 10 rounds and would require ammunition dealers to be licensed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Of course it takes a BLUE state to show the majority RED congress how to do this.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The state can probably require the check on ammo...does it include powder, primers, brass, and lead too?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)You don't have a provlem with a lot of unconstitutional government bullshit.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Response to Marengo (Reply #14)
Post removed
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Surveillance?
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)That's some sort of progress I suppose...
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)So much for grandfathering. Something to remember when such schemes are proposed.
The state can probably require the check on ammo...does it include powder, primers, brass, and lead too?
As I read it, it includes bullets at least. Not sure about powder, primers, or brass. I didn't go over it with a fine-toothed comb.
Man, I'm glad I don't live in California. The gun laws here in Colorado are bad enough.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)
You can't take property that was acquired legally without due process AND fair market compensation.
The SCOTUS ruled last year 8-1 that the 5th Amendment clause on just compensation and due process applies to personal property just as it does to real (Land/house) property.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)by police. They can take your money and you have to prove that you have the money legally.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)In that concept, the police accuse the property of having been acquired with "dirty money" from illegal sales.
It's widely abused, but each case is brought to court. What is wrongful is the burden and the fact that the poor often can't afford to hire a lawyer for civil courts.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)why should they be treated any differently than cash?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)especially since Oklahoma can run all of your cards through and you have to spend eternity fighting in court to get your money back - without you money and then spending your money.
That is INSANITY.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)then yes.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The correct answer is no.
avebury
(10,952 posts)anymore bullets without a background check. How is that a violation of their right to own guns?
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)because they have repoed all of your belongings and fiscal resources because you got stopped in OK and they decided you were a drug dealer and had over $100 in your pocket.
Drugs in the car? No. On a warrant list? No. Have some money in the car? Cha-ching you just paid for new policing equipment. May I refer you to an attorney.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I think many just don't understand that police have been engaging in highway robbery.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)an unlawful seizure of property.
Initech
(100,063 posts) 
roamer65
(36,745 posts)It would be upheld at the SCOTUS.
It doesn't impede gun ownership.
I would have no complaint going through a background check to obtain an ammunition purchase license.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)How would you feel about going through that background check each and every time you buy ammo, and having the type and amount of ammo you purchased entered in a database and flagged for further investigation if it is deemed "suspiciously large"?
That's what Gov. Cuomo tried to pass in New York. It actually did pass, but when the federal government told him "No, Andrew, you can't use the NICS system to do your ammo checks -- we're busy enough as it is," and realistic cost estimates started to come in on establishing and administering the database at the state level, the measure was unceremoniously shelved. Not repealed, but shelved.
Security theater at its finest.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)We regulate liquor, beer, wine, driving a car. I have zero problem with regulation of ammunition.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
roamer65
(36,745 posts)If that referendum passes, CA has every right to enforce it.
It will hold up in court. The federal courts have already affirmed CA's right to be a "may issue" state on CPL's.
Laugh all you, want.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)And I live in Texas so your ignorant laws don't bother me at all.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)It took effect in January, 1920.
Go read up on American history.
Your beloved Texas actually ratified it, btw. So you do ban things down there.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)but frankly, I'm not inclined to out-ignorant anybody since LA and MS would likely win, we would just be a hell of a lot less proud of it than you in particular seem to be, 1shooter.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)My sister had to have her reception in a different county than her wedding because the rest of us weren't attending without champagne and liquor being served.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)A reception is a reception without adequate booze!
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)I would have no problem with a single background check to get a card that allows me to buy ammo. It could even be renewable every year and subject to immediate revocation upon a felony conviction. But to be background checked every single time you buy a box of shotgun shells or .22 rimfire is absurd.
The "suspiciously large purchases" provision in NY was particularly insidious. After all, if you were going to have to fill out a form and have a background check for every purchase, wouldn't you want to consolidate your purchases? Buy in bulk to save the hassle? But then you get flagged.
The whole thing, at least in NY, was deliberately designed to make gun ownership as onerous as possible. The hope is that the casual shooter won't want to be bothered and will give up shooting. It's culture war, as some on here so proudly proclaim.
melm00se
(4,990 posts)Herrington v. District of Columbia
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Read up... That ruling was on a ammo ban not a regulation of it.
sheshe2
(83,731 posts)California.
Baby steps? Sure. Yet it starts.
Thanks to the Dems for the filibuster and sit in. Your strength and determination was inspiring. Here is to our peeps and a huge call out to LEWIS and Clark, you are going down on the right side of history then again you always have.
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #9)
Post removed
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)... but I have a hard time with people singing "We Shall Overcome" in support of legislation that backs a secret government watch list. My irony meter almost broke.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)... and the "We Shall Overcome" Constitutional protections of due process schtick still nearly snapped that needle.
-app
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #9)
Post removed
sheshe2
(83,731 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Of course this is the house not the Senate. Nice to see that you still like attacking and disrespecting a Democrat.
sheshe2
(83,731 posts)I never knew he was there for the 15 hour filbuster. Oh, wait. he wasn't.
AND!
sheshe2 (32,039 posts)
California.
Baby steps? Sure. Yet it starts.
Thanks to the Dems for the filibuster and sit in. Your strength and determination was inspiring. Here is to our peeps and a huge call out to LEWIS and Clark, you are going down on the right side of history then again you always have.
34. Sit down for a photo op...
... and then leave when its time for vacation.
Hard hitting stuff...
37. Sorry ...
... but I have a hard time with people singing "We Shall Overcome" in support of legislation that backs a secret government watch list. My irony meter almost broke.
39. So did mine. nt
81. +1
83. Mine too
82. Looked good until it stated to impede on vacation time
Not important enough, let's leave.
88. How long was Bernie there?
89. Longer than some, not as long as others
Of course this is the house not the Senate. Nice to see that you still like attacking and disrespecting a Democrat.
You are accusing me of disrespecting a Democrat when you just disrespected ALL the HOUSE and SENATE Dems that joined the sit in that lasted 26 hours and been at 15 hour filibuster the day before.
You said..."Looked good until it stated to impede on vacation time
Not important enough, let's leave" and here we have Tip Top saying it is a photo op and you agree.
Dear goddess!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Long may this continue...
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)With Sudafed I have to show ID, have my purchase logged in the state database, and am limited in the amount I can purchase in a month.
It's not going to hurt anyone but criminals to wait an extra minute for NICS.
Speaking of which: Obama could probably cut down on violent crime almost overnight if he ordered his federal attorneys to actually prosecute the thousand of people trying, illegally, to buy guns every year. It would be a hell of a lot more beneficial to society than wasting resources on pot dealers.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 26, 2016, 02:11 AM - Edit history (1)
NICS said "no" to processing ammo checks for Cuomo's NY SAFE Act. They're already overburdened. Hawaii will have to fund and administer the ammo background check system by themselves.
See this post.
NY has shelved theirs indefinitely. Let's see how much Hawaii's taxpayers are willing to fork over for this.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts) MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If they are smart the magazine portion will be severable because it is unconstitutional on its face. Without a grandfather clause or a buy back, it's a clear violation of the fifth amendment as it deprives persons of property without due process of law.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I say even, but there was no other legal option. Both the Federal and State constitutions prohibit taking of property without just compensation.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Chevy
(1,063 posts)go after the bullets charge an insane amount for them there by going around the 2nd amendment argument.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Might make a good comedy bit but doesn't pass legal muster at any level.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)regulated.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Next!
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Also to legalize pot. If anything that alone is worth it if nothing else is.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Ex Lurker
(3,812 posts)there's a reason the Cabela's Reno store is just a stone's throw from California. You'd think it would be in the closest population center (that being Reno) but it's not.
sarisataka
(18,598 posts)About online purchases?
DustyJoe
(849 posts)the mexican cartels will start running ammo along with their drugs.
They are a very 'customer needs' enterprise so along with selling
a brick of dope they'll ask if the buyer needs a brick of .22 with the purchase.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)I would not trust that shit though. I've seen shitty ammunition jam a gun. Rather drive a couple hours to Nevada and buy quality made stuff
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)go buy ammo himself.
He'll send a friend who can pass the check....
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)If a prohibited person has the gumption to acquire or possess a firearm illegally, I really don't think an ammo background check is going to be a barrier to gun violence.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)for "doing something"
avebury
(10,952 posts)While the 2nd Amendment allows people to own guns you might make an argument that it does not include the automatic right to own the bullets that go in the guns. I like that approach of thinking outside the box.
Let people buy their guns, it won't do them much good if they can't buy the ammo they need in order to actually use the guns.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)The ammunition is a necessary component of the firearm.
The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in Herrington v. District of Columbia that ammunition bans violate the Second Amendment:
“it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”
avebury
(10,952 posts)They are looking to institute a background check prior to purchase. If someone fails that background check should that person be allowed to buy ammo?
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)I was addressing your claim that:
"While the 2nd Amendment allows people to own guns you might make an argument that it does not include the automatic right to own the bullets that go in the guns. "
That argument is specious, and has been addressed by the courts.
As to the California law, it will come down to whether a background check can be required for each component of a firearm system.
As a practical effect, it will simply lead to more ammo hording. Instead of buying a box of rounds on the way to the range, people with buy a case to avoid the hassle each time.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)So this, again, targets only people who already follow the law
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)The logic was a tax soley on newspaper publishers made it harder to exercise their first amendment.
The fact is, nobody is going to run a backround check on a 15.00 ammo sale. They will raise prices, or stop selling ammo. As such, its not a stretch to find it unconstitutional.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)But it can be highly regulated, just like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc.
It should come from the national level. ATF to be precise.
Squinch
(50,946 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Lets also run a background check when you buy a 6 pack of beer. If somebody has too many DUI's we can block them from buying alcohol. If it only saves 1 life, I think its worth implementing.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)To keep people from bootlegging it from AZ and Nevada,
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Just seize their vehicles on the first offense and fine them heavily.
We don't need to feed the prison industrial complex that much.
Fair enough
jpak
(41,757 posts) roamer65
(36,745 posts)Make it a permitting process. You have to pass a full background check to get an ammunition purchase permit. Make it renewable every 3 years or so.
1. Only allow the purchaser to purchase the specific ammunition for the firearms they own. This can be verified by taking the firearm to a sheriff or local PD for verification of its ownership. No valid claim to or proof of ownership of the firearm...no ammo permit for that caliber. And yes, this would be the start of a valid and accurate gun registry system.
2. No sale or transfer of ammunition between gun owners unless they are permitted to receive that specific caliber of ammo.
Flame away.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)So I make them myself.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Within a couple of months.
madville
(7,408 posts)Doesn't prevent prohibited people from obtaining guns is now going to prevent them from receiving ammunition? If they are prohibited from buying guns and ammo how do they have a gun to buy ammo for?
Good intentions but it won't prevent much.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)once again, only those who follow the law will be affected
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)So CA is going to have to setup a whole new system.
Their current system has the state do check for firearms instead of the FBI call center, but they still access the NICS database.
It's not legal to use that database for anything but firearms or certain explosives regulated by the BATFE.
New York tried to do the same thing. Several years and many millions of dollars after the target date the first background check for ammo haven't been done...
roamer65
(36,745 posts)That usually is a full FBI check, fingerprinting included.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And take a ton of time.
Does this ballot initiative assign and funding if passed or would the state have to budget it? Does it mandate they hire the thousands of people it would take to do it like you say with checks all the way to fingerprints? Or would they take law enforcement off other jobs and reassign them?
They clearly haven't looked at the reality of it, or the lessons New York is learning trying to do it.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Will they be relegated to the status of meth cooks?
